Posted Mar 11, 2009, 11:50 PM UTC
Woo also peed on my rug.
That rug really tied the room together.
I see you're talking about rugs; based upon your posting, I'd love to recommend the Grizzly Black Bear Throw Area Rug.
Anyone else wondering why a police station regularly stocks GRENADES
...and then 25 years later, almost to the day...
Wow, I didn't realize he killed 32 people. That's horrific.
when did you learn how to read?
you need a different nick, now.
Yeah, it would have been just fine though if he'd only killed a few people, huh?
Relatively speaking, yes.
Who says women are oversensitive and men aren't.
[deleted]
if he was a ninja it would have been 93 dead and we wouldn't know his name
Another 27 year old...
Don't you wish people like this didn't kill themselves so you could do it for them?
Ha the guy killed 58 people, you think you have a chance?
If he's not expecting it, totally. You could kill a nin... well, maybe not a ninja, but any typical badass. You just approach them with a smile, a nice greeting, and shoot em in the head *shrug*
M-M-M-MONSTER KILL!
Woo... what a Bum.
Wouldn't have been 58 if it wasn't only the police that had guns.
I agree with you, inasmuch as I fully support the 2nd Amendment, but I hate that kind of 'monday morning quarterbacking'. You know that whenever a civilian kills a bunch of people, the anti-gun nuts will use that as example of why only the police should have guns, right?
The fact that you're using a variation of the same argument they use means either, A) you're too stupid to realize it's the same argument they use, or B) you do realize that, but you use it anyway because you can pretend that it's a logical reason why your position is the correct one.
Either way, it's not a real argument for either position, it's just an overly simplified bullshit line that gets spouted by one side or the other every time something like this happens.
How can the anti-gun nuts use it as an argument? The guy WAS a policeman.
Yeah, but the guy in Alabama this morning was a civilian, so was the kid in Germany. If someone says, "Oh, see, if civilians weren't allowed to own guns, those shootings never would have happened!", do you think they'd be right?
My point was that either side can use that same sort of speculative 'what if?' argument to support their claim. Which makes that type of argument pretty pointless.
I'm sorry, but you're not calling me an anti-gun nut are you?
I'm saying that if the civilians were equipped as well, the death toll would not have been nearly as high.
How is this the same argument anti-gun nuts use?
I thought my comment was the inverse of the anti-gun argument? Maybe I'm too stupid to understand this. Please enlighten me.
Why would both sides of the 2nd amendment debate support my statement? Why would anti-gun nuts spout that line?
I wouldn't say you are too stupid to understand but you are definitely missing the point.
He isn't calling you an anti-gun nut. He is saying that your argument suffers the same flaw as the argument used by anti-gun nuts.
He is saying every time there is a mass shooting:
Anti gun says that incidents like this show why we need more gun control.
Pro gun says that incidents like this show why we need less control and more people with guns.
Both arguments are over simplified and dumb.
He's basically saying that your current stance is as myopic as those of Anti-gun nuts.
Imagine someone saying this:
I'm saying that if the civilians were not allowed to own firearms, there would not have been a tragedy.
It's silly for either side to presume that they know what the outcome of a tragedy would be under different circumstances. These presumptions are usually based on personal opinion with little, if any, corroborating evidence.
I hope this has answered your question in some way.
Sorry if it was unclear. I was saying if that guy had been a crazy civilian, instead of a crazy cop, the anti-gun nuts would have been saying basically the same thing you were saying, except they'd be using it to argue the exact opposite point. "Oh, if only civilians weren't allowed to have guns, those 58 people wouldn't be dead", etc.
Like I said, I agree with you, I'm against pretty much any form of gun control. But I'm saying that your particular argument is kind of ridiculous, since it's entirely speculative and could basically be used to support either side of the debate.
Thanks for you clarification.
I understand that that argument could be used both ways had it been a crazy civilian.
But it was not?
In this case, it was an officer who abused his priveledged position of firepower in order to commit these crimes.
If it had been a crazy civilian, I would not have made that statement.
He then walked from house to house and used his position as a police officer to make people feel safe and gain entry into their homes
Doubtful that other people being armed would have helped here. Unless you like to shoot at police.
If I just saw my father shot in front of me, I think I'd have no problem shooting at that officer.
Bullshit. Did you read about his method? Wouldn't have made a difference.
I did read about his method. I believe 35 were injured? It wasn't only 58 dead?
There would have been countless opportunities for one of those civilians to return fire and/or fire upon the rampager after he had swindled his way into their home.
Do you trust the police with that?
Trust the police with what?
I think you may have misunderstood my comment.
Then explain? I mean, do you trust the police to be the only people who have guns?
Wouldn't have been 58 if it wasn't only the police that had guns.
Are you serious? Read that again.
I'm saying that the police shouldn't be the only people with guns, meaning that the civilians should have been equipped with guns as well, which would have stemmed the death toll to way below 58.
Crazy, rampaging asians!
i don't really get this headline. had it been "cause: his live in girlfriend committed suicide" or whatever else... it wouldn't be justified.
You see, the point of the headline was to contrast the severity of the tragedy with the triviality of the cause. Thus making the massacre seem even more absurd.
no no, i get it. i just think it's retarded and ineffective.
Oh I assure you, I was very well aware that that was implied in your original post. I just thought it was retarded and ineffective.
touché. very clever.
What did the girlfriend look like?
Heh. Bum.
Wow Woo Bum-Kon. Do it big.
That guy was fucking awesome.
[deleted]
There are no innocents, all men are born corrupt.
[deleted]
I wasnt talking about good and/or evil either.
Whats wrong with you stupid fuckers that take everything so literally all the time?
By the way, I love how you got all of your friends together to downmod my opinions & upmod yours, nice teamwork.
Pussy.
92 problems but a bitch ain't one!
I like how this is the only root comment without a negative score atm.
Looking at the other comments, it's because it's the least retarded, as preposterous as it sounds given the quote. What is this, Annual 4chan day or something?
Here are some of the root comments so far that amazingly managed to rank lower:
Really, now all we need is some child porn, and 4chan day will be complete.
[deleted]
and despite being downmodded, I still say that guy is fucking awesome.
Fine, I'll bite. Explain why he's awesome? You need to help us out here, or it's just the same as saying "RuPaul is awesome" or "Vlad Tsepes is awesome", or "Joe the Plumber is awesome".
Can you enlighten us as to why Woo Bum-Kon was awesome without just saying "because he was awesome"?
its because he had a level of awesomeness that is generally only found in fiction.
Rambo was awesome. Little Boy and Fat Man were awesome. The 2nd Iraq was the most awesome of all.
see the pattern yet?